Preview
Filed: 8/30/2023 3:14 PM
Judge, Circuit Court
Grant County, Indiana
STATE OF INDIANA IN THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT
COUNTY OF GRANT CAUSE NO.: 27C01-2307-CT-000053
STEVEN SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD HALT, RITEWAY DELIVERY,
INC., and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE
SYSTEM, INC.,
Defendants.
DEFENDANT RITEWAY DELIVERY, INC.’S
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT
Comes now Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc., by counsel, Edward C. Harcourt of Kopka
Pinkus Dolin PC, and for its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, states:
1 That on or about the 28th day of May, 2022, the Plaintiff, Steven Smith
(hereinafter “Smith”), was injured while operating a motor vehicle. He was injured by the
careless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendant Ricahrd (sic) Halt (hereinafter
“Halt”), when Halt carelessly and negligently operated a motor vehicle in the City of
Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana, and caused his vehicle to crash into the
vehicle operated by Smith.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no
answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies
the allegations in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant
Riteway Delivery, Inc. specifically denies the allegations of conduct amounting to
negligence.
1
2. That on the aforesaid date, Smith operated a motor vehicle westbound on West 2 nd
Street in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by
Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated
by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
therefore denies.
3. That on the aforesaid date, Halt operated a motor vehicle northbound on Wabash
Street, in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by
Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated
by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
therefore denies.
4 That on the aforesaid date and at all times material, a stop sign was posted for
northbound vehicles at the intersection of Wabash Street and West 2nd Street, in the City of
Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by
Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated
by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or
2
deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
therefore denies.
5. That on the aforesaid date and at all times material, West 2nd Street was a
preferential street over Wabash Street at the intersection of those streets in the City of
Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no
answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies
the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
6. That Halt, at the aforesaid time and place, was careless and negligent in the
operation of a motor vehicle in each of the following: in carelessly and negligently failing to stop
for a posted stop sign; in carelessly and negligently failing to keep a proper lookout for motor
vehicles traveling on a preferential street; in carelessly and negligently operating a motor vehicle
at an unreasonable rate of speed, each of which careless and negligent act was the responsible
cause of personal injuries and damages to the Plaintiff, Smith.
ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint
amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no
answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies
the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant
3
Riteway Delivery, Inc. specifically denies the allegations of conduct amounting to
negligence.
7. That as a result of the negligence of Halt, Smith sustained multiple injuries and
damages including hospital, medical, drug, doctor and treatment expenses, future hospital,
medical, drug and doctor expenses, permanent impairment, pain and suffering, future pain and
suffering, and loss of earning and earning capacity.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in
Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
8. That at all times material hereto, Halt was in the course and scope of his
employment with the Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the vehicle operated by
Defendant Richard Halt at the time of the accident was owned by Defendant
Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider
agreement. By way of further response, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies
that Defendant Richard Halt was employed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
At the time of the accident, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits Defendant
Richard Halt was employed by Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was
providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an
independent service provider agreement, and was operating the subject vehicle
pursuant to his employment. Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. additionally admits
4
only that Defendant Richard Halt was an agent of Defendant FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. at the time of the accident. Otherwise, Defendant Riteway
Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
9. That at all times material hereto, Halt was in the course and scope of his
employment with the Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the vehicle operated by
Defendant Richard Halt at the time of the accident was owned by Defendant
Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider
agreement. By way of further response, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies
that Defendant Richard Halt was employed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
At the time of the accident, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits Defendant
Richard Halt was employed by Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was
providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an
independent service provider agreement, and was operating the subject vehicle
pursuant to his employment. Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. additionally admits
only that Defendant Richard Halt was an agent of Defendant FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc. at the time of the accident. Otherwise, Defendant Riteway
Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
5
Wherefore, Defendant, Riteway Delivery, Inc., respectfully prays that the Plaintiff takes
nothing by way of his Complaint, for judgment in favor of the Defendant, and for all other just
and proper relief in the premises, including the costs of this action.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
1. The Defendant herein is entitled to the benefit of the payment by all collateral sources of
any sums of money to the Plaintiff arising out of the incident described in Plaintiff’s
Complaint.
2. The Defendant herein is entitled to introduce evidence pursuant to Stanley v. Walker, 906
N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2009) and Patchett v. Lee, 60 N.E.3d 1025 (Ind. 2016).
3. That the amount of damages sought by Plaintiff is subject to setoff and recoupment.
4. That Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages.
5. That Plaintiff has not sustained any legally cognizable injury and therefore lack standing.
6. That the contributory fault of the Plaintiff, including negligence, incurred risk, assumed
risk, and failure to mitigate damages, was greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total
fault involved in the incident.
7. That the fault of the Plaintiff, including negligence, incurred risk, assumed risk, and
failure to mitigate damages, proximately caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s alleged
damages, and by reason thereof, the compensatory damages alleged by the Plaintiff must
be reduced by the proportion the contributory fault bears to the total fault involved in the
incident.
8. As to any legal or rhetorical paragraphs asserted against this Defendant, directly or by
inference, not hereto specifically admitted or denied, the same are hereby denied.
6
9. This Defendant hereby reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they
become known through the process of discovery or otherwise.
10. That Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s pre-existing
medical or physical condition.
JURY DEMAND
Defendant, Riteway Delivery, Inc., by counsel, hereby demands trial by jury as to all
issues herein.
Respectfully Submitted,
KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC
By: /s/ Edward C. Harcourt
Edward C. Harcourt (#32360-49)
Attorney for Defendants
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 30th day of August, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing
document using the Indiana E-Filing System (IEFS). I further certify that the following persons
were served on the same date using the IEFS:
Whitney K. Beck
The Beck Law Office
401 W. Walnut St.
P. O. Box 868
Kokomo, IN 46903-0868
/s/ Edward C. Harcourt
KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC
11711 N. Meridian, Suite 350
Carmel, IN 46032
Tel: (317) 814-8098
Fax: (317) 818-1390
Email: ECHarcourt@kopkalaw.com
7
Preview
Filed: 8/30/2023 3:14 PM Judge, Circuit Court Grant County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA IN THE GRANT CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF GRANT CAUSE NO.: 27C01-2307-CT-000053 STEVEN SMITH, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD HALT, RITEWAY DELIVERY, INC., and FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANT RITEWAY DELIVERY, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Comes now Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc., by counsel, Edward C. Harcourt of Kopka Pinkus Dolin PC, and for its answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, states: 1 That on or about the 28th day of May, 2022, the Plaintiff, Steven Smith (hereinafter “Smith”), was injured while operating a motor vehicle. He was injured by the careless and negligent acts and omissions of the Defendant Ricahrd (sic) Halt (hereinafter “Halt”), when Halt carelessly and negligently operated a motor vehicle in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana, and caused his vehicle to crash into the vehicle operated by Smith. ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. specifically denies the allegations of conduct amounting to negligence. 1 2. That on the aforesaid date, Smith operated a motor vehicle westbound on West 2 nd Street in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies. 3. That on the aforesaid date, Halt operated a motor vehicle northbound on Wabash Street, in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies. 4 That on the aforesaid date and at all times material, a stop sign was posted for northbound vehicles at the intersection of Wabash Street and West 2nd Street, in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the subject vehicle operated by Defendant Richard Halt was involved in a collision with the motor vehicle operated by the Plaintiff but lacks sufficient information or knowledge on which to admit or 2 deny the allegations contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and therefore denies. 5. That on the aforesaid date and at all times material, West 2nd Street was a preferential street over Wabash Street at the intersection of those streets in the City of Michigantown, County of Clinton, State of Indiana. ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 6. That Halt, at the aforesaid time and place, was careless and negligent in the operation of a motor vehicle in each of the following: in carelessly and negligently failing to stop for a posted stop sign; in carelessly and negligently failing to keep a proper lookout for motor vehicles traveling on a preferential street; in carelessly and negligently operating a motor vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed, each of which careless and negligent act was the responsible cause of personal injuries and damages to the Plaintiff, Smith. ANSWER: The allegations contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint amount to a legal conclusion to which Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. makes no answer thereto. If an answer is required, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. Furthermore, Defendant 3 Riteway Delivery, Inc. specifically denies the allegations of conduct amounting to negligence. 7. That as a result of the negligence of Halt, Smith sustained multiple injuries and damages including hospital, medical, drug, doctor and treatment expenses, future hospital, medical, drug and doctor expenses, permanent impairment, pain and suffering, future pain and suffering, and loss of earning and earning capacity. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 8. That at all times material hereto, Halt was in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the vehicle operated by Defendant Richard Halt at the time of the accident was owned by Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider agreement. By way of further response, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies that Defendant Richard Halt was employed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. At the time of the accident, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits Defendant Richard Halt was employed by Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider agreement, and was operating the subject vehicle pursuant to his employment. Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. additionally admits 4 only that Defendant Richard Halt was an agent of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. at the time of the accident. Otherwise, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 9. That at all times material hereto, Halt was in the course and scope of his employment with the Defendant Fedex Ground Package System, Inc. ANSWER: Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits the vehicle operated by Defendant Richard Halt at the time of the accident was owned by Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider agreement. By way of further response, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies that Defendant Richard Halt was employed by FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. At the time of the accident, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. admits Defendant Richard Halt was employed by Riteway Delivery, Inc., a service provider which was providing services for FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. pursuant to an independent service provider agreement, and was operating the subject vehicle pursuant to his employment. Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. additionally admits only that Defendant Richard Halt was an agent of Defendant FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. at the time of the accident. Otherwise, Defendant Riteway Delivery, Inc. denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint. 5 Wherefore, Defendant, Riteway Delivery, Inc., respectfully prays that the Plaintiff takes nothing by way of his Complaint, for judgment in favor of the Defendant, and for all other just and proper relief in the premises, including the costs of this action. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 1. The Defendant herein is entitled to the benefit of the payment by all collateral sources of any sums of money to the Plaintiff arising out of the incident described in Plaintiff’s Complaint. 2. The Defendant herein is entitled to introduce evidence pursuant to Stanley v. Walker, 906 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2009) and Patchett v. Lee, 60 N.E.3d 1025 (Ind. 2016). 3. That the amount of damages sought by Plaintiff is subject to setoff and recoupment. 4. That Plaintiff has failed to mitigate his damages. 5. That Plaintiff has not sustained any legally cognizable injury and therefore lack standing. 6. That the contributory fault of the Plaintiff, including negligence, incurred risk, assumed risk, and failure to mitigate damages, was greater than fifty percent (50%) of the total fault involved in the incident. 7. That the fault of the Plaintiff, including negligence, incurred risk, assumed risk, and failure to mitigate damages, proximately caused or contributed to cause Plaintiff’s alleged damages, and by reason thereof, the compensatory damages alleged by the Plaintiff must be reduced by the proportion the contributory fault bears to the total fault involved in the incident. 8. As to any legal or rhetorical paragraphs asserted against this Defendant, directly or by inference, not hereto specifically admitted or denied, the same are hereby denied. 6 9. This Defendant hereby reserves the right to add additional affirmative defenses as they become known through the process of discovery or otherwise. 10. That Plaintiff’s alleged damages were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s pre-existing medical or physical condition. JURY DEMAND Defendant, Riteway Delivery, Inc., by counsel, hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues herein. Respectfully Submitted, KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC By: /s/ Edward C. Harcourt Edward C. Harcourt (#32360-49) Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 30th day of August, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing document using the Indiana E-Filing System (IEFS). I further certify that the following persons were served on the same date using the IEFS: Whitney K. Beck The Beck Law Office 401 W. Walnut St. P. O. Box 868 Kokomo, IN 46903-0868 /s/ Edward C. Harcourt KOPKA PINKUS DOLIN PC 11711 N. Meridian, Suite 350 Carmel, IN 46032 Tel: (317) 814-8098 Fax: (317) 818-1390 Email: ECHarcourt@kopkalaw.com 7